Please write a short email TODAY

As you are already aware, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is reviewing their current policy on conscience rights for doctors. They have favoured conscience rights for non-emergency procedures to date. This reasonable position is at risk of changing.

What you can do:

Go to this web site, and choose how you want to give feedback. I found it easiest to send a quick email, which said this:

Every physician must be free to practice medicine using their hearts and minds. Restrictions on conscience removes the ability to do so. There will always be disagreements on what constitutes good treatment and this is healthy dialogue to have in a democratic society. Physicians must be free to respond to patients, using their own medical expertise and their conscience, not the enforcement of an outside regulatory body. There is a responsibility on the patient to discern, again, using his or her own conscience, whether they want a different doctor. If conscience rights are restricted, Ontario will lose good doctors.

You can use my letter, or part of it, or just write “I support freedom of conscience for doctors.” Really, it’s that easy. So do it today. They are accepting opinions until August 5.

This is important–and if freedom of thought is curtailed for doctors, we all lose.

Related Posts

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

A Phycian’s oath is to “do no harm”… If an educated Physician has searched his or her own heart, and the ethical, moral and humane implications of his or her actions -and -if his or her Spirit guides he or she in discerning whether something is medically unethical, or could be harmful to those in their care, then he or she should have the freedom to follow the dictates of his or her own educated conscience. These decisions are not made carelessly and without knowledge, understanding or compassion – and as such, once discerned with care and wisdom, should be respected.

Has anyone else noticed that the moderator on the CPSO “discussion page” seems to have a bias against rational pro-life arguments? I’ve had 2 or 3 replies that did not get posted until I pressed them for a reason. In the most recent case, it took them 4 days to post my reply (and even then, they did not post it with the original date). In the meantime, other things are getting posted immediately, including some rather outrageous ad hominem attacks against conservative positions, and against religion in particular.

Dan, has this changed at all? Just curious. Wouldn’t surprise me if they think anti-religious views are neutral, while religious ones are biased and need further consideration. That’s pretty standard liberal elite thinking.

I don’t know if it has changed. Hard to say, because I’m not posting frequently enough to see a trend.

However, I should point out that I have not been submitting religious views, and I have not seen evidence of a bias against posting religious views. I can’t really say one way or the other. I can see that (at least some) religious views are being posted, but I can’t see if any are not being posted.

What I have been submitting are essentially secular pro-life arguments, i.e. arguments based on science and philosophy, without reference to God or the bible. Those are the ones that have been delayed. I am not sure if they would have been posted at all if I hadn’t gone back to the moderator and demanded an explanation. I received no explanation, by the way. They just (eventually) posted my comments without any explanation.

Fern Hill, I’m not part of Campaign Life. And I’m also less than inclined to respond to a note that starts with “You Pro-Lifey people.” I am sorry if other pro-lifers have been rude to you. But I have not been. Therefore, treating me as you would like to be treated seems like a fair request to make.

I thought the image looked unprofessional, like it was hastily thrown together. And it probably was, which is likely also why they took it down. Graphics matter, and I didn’t like it as it didn’t help to elucidate the issue at hand. There. My two cents.